JUDGMENT : R.M Doshit, K.M Thaker, JJ. This group of Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the common judgment and order dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in above Special Civil Applications. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the Appeals are heard today and are decided by this common judgment. 3. The appellants in these Appeals are the Life Insurance Corporation of India (here in after referred to as "the Corporation"), its Officers and the Union of India. The respondents in these Appeals are the candidates who were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant in Class-III service in the Corporation. 4. The Corporation, under its Circular dated 25th February, 1993, issued Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-N Staff) Instructions (hereinafter referred to as "the afore said Instructions"). Under the aforesaid Instructions, the offices were, inter-alia, required to draw a panel of selected candidates; the candidates would be offered appointment against the immediately available permanent vacancies in order of ranking; the remaining persons would be absorbed when the vacancies arose. The offices were also instructed to utilise the paneled candidates for appointment on temporary basis as and when need arose. It further provided that the number of candidates to be empanelled would be twice the number of permanent vacancies in the year; in the subsequent year, the number of persons to be added in the panel would be equal to the number of vacancies less the number of persons remaining on the panel. Thus, under the said instructions the panel of the candidates prepared after the date of the aforesaid Instructions was intended to be perennial and all the candidates empanelled were assured appointment in order of ranking on permanent vacancies as and when available. 5. Pursuant to the said instructions, recruitment procedure for appointment to class-III posts was initiated in the year 1993. After holding competitive test and oral interview, etc. a panel of successful candidates was published on 7th August, 1995. The said panel was operated regularly until the year 1998-1999. Since the year 1999, no regular appointment was made on any permanent vacancy. However, some candidates were appointed on temporary basis as and when required. After holding competitive test and oral interview, etc. a panel of successful candidates was published on 7th August, 1995. The said panel was operated regularly until the year 1998-1999. Since the year 1999, no regular appointment was made on any permanent vacancy. However, some candidates were appointed on temporary basis as and when required. The respondents before us are some of such candidates who were, empanelled on 7th August, 1995, who are not regularly appointed on permanent vacancies but, who were given temporary appointment as and when required. Indisputably, the said panel prepared on 7th August, 1995 was not augmented in the subsequent years by holding recruitment procedure every year, as envisaged by the aforesaid instructions. The said panel was not operated since year the 1999 nor was it exhausted as provided in the aforesaid instructions. Instead, the Corporation decided to cancel the said panel and gave public notice to that effect on 26th November. 2007. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents approached this Court by filing above Special Civil Applications under Article 228 of the Constitution. Pursuant to their empanelment in the panel of 7th August, 1995, the respondents claimed a right to regular appointment on permanent vacancies. The respondents also claimed that they had been given temporary appointments. Thus, master and servant relationship between the Corporation and the respondents had come into existence. The Corporation was, therefore, duty bound to offer regular appointment to the respondents on permanent vacancies. 7. The petitions were contested by the Corporation. The above referred facts were not contested by the Corporation. The Corporation, however, urged that on 23rd November, 2007, the Corporation had amended the aforesaid instructions. The appended Clauses 5 and 15 provided, inter-alia, that, "Recruitment shall be only against the vacancies in the sanctioned posts." It further provided that, "The validity period of the ranking list shall be maximum of two years from the date of its publication or till the next recruitment notification, whichever is earlier." Thus, by the amended instructions, the length of the panel has been curtailed to the existing vacancies and the life of the panel has been curtailed to a maximum period of two years from the date of its publication. According to the Corporation, the said amended instructions apply to the existing panels also. According to the Corporation, the said amended instructions apply to the existing panels also. In view of the said instructions, the existing panels, which were more than two years old including the panel dated 7th August, 1995, were scrapped. The Corporation has also placed on record the details of the operation of the panel dated 7th August, 1995 in each of its six Divisions. As stated in the counter-affidavit and accompanying documents, the said panel was operated to make regular appointment on permanent vacancies strictly in order of ranking. Through the respondents and some others were-appointed temporarily; on the date of the cancellation of the panel none of the respondents was in the service of the Corporation even on temporary basis. No candidate appointed on temporary basis was regularised in service or was appointed on permanent basis. However, in respect of Vadodara Division, some of the temporarily appointed candidates had approached this Court in the year 2005. In the said proceeding, the Corporation, in consonance with the aforesaid Instructions, made a statement on oath that, "The list is open and the candidature of the petitioners, who are already in the employment of the Corporation will be considered for regularisation or permanency as and when regular vacancy arises and ban on recruitment is lifted." It was also submitted before the Court that "the panel list in question remains valid as long as the same is exhausted". Besides, there were similar litigations pending before the Bombay High Court. A similar statement was made before the Bombay High Court also. 8. It is admitted before us that pursuant to the above referred statement made before the, Court, though on the date of statement no candidate temporarily appointed was in service, the Corporation did offer regular appointment to the writ petitioners before the Court on permanent vacancies. Out of 10 such candidates, 7 candidates have accepted the appointment and are working as such. 9. While deciding the writ petitions, the learned single Judge relied upon the above referred statement. It was also noted that some of the candidates (the petitioners before the Court in 2005 proceedings) who were temporarily appointed were given regular appointment on permanent vacancies. Out of 10 such candidates, 7 candidates have accepted the appointment and are working as such. 9. While deciding the writ petitions, the learned single Judge relied upon the above referred statement. It was also noted that some of the candidates (the petitioners before the Court in 2005 proceedings) who were temporarily appointed were given regular appointment on permanent vacancies. The learned single Judge treated the above referred statement made by the Corporation as an undertaking to the Court and observed that "such undertaking gives rise to an expectation which partakes the character of legitimate expectation." The learned single Judge also noted that those candidates who had approached the Court earlier have been given permanent appointment irrespective of their ranking in the panel, which created discrimination. In view of the above referred observations made by the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions, in respect of the respondents., who were temporarily appointed at one time or the other. The learned single Judge has held that, "this kind of policy is required to be deprecated and in the interest of justice all those who were ever appointed from the panel on temporary basis at some point of time deserve to be considered for appointment. To maintain fairness, the panelists, who were ever appointed were required to be put at par with those who were regularised notwithstanding their term being small." In respect of the other panelists, the learned single Judge observed that, "...This Court feels that it may not be necessary to examine whether the amendment was retrospective or prospective. Suffice it to say that those who were appointed for sometime will be regularised and those who were never appointed even for short period could be excluded." In above view of the matter the learned single Judge issued direction that, "In view of the above, this Court finally orders that all those who were ever taken in service at any point of time before the list was scrapped will be offered appointment by the respondents. This is because they have undertaken before the Court to that effect. Those who were never appointed for any period, will be left out. They form a distinct group. Those, whose juniors have been appointed, will have to be treated separately and offered appointment." 10. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred the present set of Appeals. Learned Advocate Mr. This is because they have undertaken before the Court to that effect. Those who were never appointed for any period, will be left out. They form a distinct group. Those, whose juniors have been appointed, will have to be treated separately and offered appointment." 10. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred the present set of Appeals. Learned Advocate Mr. Clerk has appeared for the Corporation. He has taken us through the record. He has submitted that the aforesaid Instructions are issued under Regulation 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed under the power conferred by Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. He has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramehandra Ambekar [ AIR 1994 SC 2148 ], held that the Instructions issued under the above referred Regulation 4 are Statutory in nature. He has submitted that the instructions of the year 2007 are statutory in nature and are binding to the Corporation. By amendment made in the year 2007, the life of a panel prepared under the aforesaid instructions has been curtailed to a maximum period of two years. Evidently, the said instructions applied to all existing panels which were older than two years. They were required to be cancelled. Accordingly, the Corporation had decided to cancel all the panels which were in operation for more than two years. The decision was published by the impugned public notice dated 26th November, 2007. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh has appeared for the respondents in these Appeals. He has contested the Appeals. Mr. Singh has supported the judgment of the learned single Judge. He has submitted that the amended instructions of the year 2007 do not make them applicable retrospectively either by an express provision or by necessary implication. He has submitted that the amended instructions should apply to the panels that may be prepared after the date of the amended instructions. The said amendment does not envisage curtailment of the existing panels. He has further submitted that the Corporation has admittedly made certain regular appointments by operating the said panel. Some of the candidates, who were earlier appointed on temporary service have been given regular appointments. The respondents are the candidates who are similarly situated. Each respondent had earlier been given temporary appointment. He has further submitted that the Corporation has admittedly made certain regular appointments by operating the said panel. Some of the candidates, who were earlier appointed on temporary service have been given regular appointments. The respondents are the candidates who are similarly situated. Each respondent had earlier been given temporary appointment. Some have served for more than one year. Learned single Judge has rightly held that the Corporation had acted arbitrarily in making appointment on regular basis. Learned single Judge has rightly issued the impugned directions to mitigate the discriminatory treatment meted out to the respondents. In support of his arguments Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gunaru Karan and others v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner and others [1991 Supp (2) SCC 291] and of Union of India and others v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and others (1992 Supp. (3) SCC 84). 12. We are unable to agree with Mr. Singh. We are of the opinion that the' learned single Judge has erred in granting relief to the respondents which too creates discrimination amongst the persons empanelled on the basis of temporary appointment offered to a few persons, admittedly, not in the order of merit 13. The above referred amendment made in the year 2007 is, neither by express terms nor by necessary implication, made retrospective or retroactive. The intention to apply the said amendment to the existing panels is not spelt out in the said amendment. But in our view, operation of the panel/select list/merit list prepared appointment to public employment cannot be operated for inordinately long period. Such operation itself is arbitrary and discriminatory. That deprives the candidates who become eligible in later years from competing for appointment on such posts. In the present case, the recruitment procedure had commenced as far back as in the year 1993. The panel/select list/merit list was prepared in the year 1995 and was operated until the year 1999. Now, it is sought to be operated after 13 years. The persons on the said panel have obviously become age barred for public employment or for the appointment to the post in question. The persons who have become eligible for public employment since the year 1995 are deprived of the opportunity to compete for appointment to such post. Now, it is sought to be operated after 13 years. The persons on the said panel have obviously become age barred for public employment or for the appointment to the post in question. The persons who have become eligible for public employment since the year 1995 are deprived of the opportunity to compete for appointment to such post. It is well settled Rule of law that the merit list prepared pursuant to a selection procedure for appointment to public employment can be operated for the posts advertised or at the most, if the administrative exigency requires, for the posts which become vacant within six months or a year. That is the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and others v. Jagdish Chopra 1207 (8) SCC 161), relied upon by Mr. Clerk. 14. In no circumstance a panel or merit list prepared 13 years ago can be permitted to be operated. More particularly, in the present case the Corporation has on its own decided to cancel the existing panels/merit lists. The decision of the Corporation in our view is in consonance with the above referred public policy. No exception is required to be made. 15. As to the Vadodara Division, we have noticed that some seven persons have been made permanent from the existing panel irrespective of their rank. The principle of fair play requires that those persons who were above such persons in the merit list/panel should get an opportunity of appointment. Such persons need not be discriminated only because they did not approach the Court of law or because they did not secure temporary appointment (during the operation of the merit list. 16. We are informed that the petitioners in above Special Civil Application Nos.2681 of 2008; 2691 of, 2008; 2695 of 2008; 2708 of 2008; 2709 of 2008, 2710 of 2008 and 4502 of 2008 are the persons empanelled on the panel for Vadodara Division prepared on 7th August, 1995. They specifically challenged the appointment of the above referred ten persons out of order merely because they had approached the Court earlier in the year 2005. We do find justification in the grievance made by those petitioners. They specifically challenged the appointment of the above referred ten persons out of order merely because they had approached the Court earlier in the year 2005. We do find justification in the grievance made by those petitioners. As observed here in above, though the Corporation was not directed to appoint any specific person and though the Corporation was required to operate the panel in order of merit, the Corporation offered employment to ten persons and that too not in order of merit. 17. The Corporation has filed further affidavit which indicates that in general category, candidates between Serial No. 162 and 179 were offered appointment in the year 2007, ignoring claim of 12 persons, who were above the persons appointed. Similarly in the category of physically handicapped persons 2 candidates were left out and in the category of scheduled tribe 1 person was left out. We, therefore, hold that the above referred 12, 2 and 1 persons in the General, Physically Handicapped and Scheduled Tribe categories respectively are required to be offered regular employment in permanent vacancy. We, therefore, direct accordingly. In absence of available vacancies in Vadodara Division, they may be accommodated in any other Division where vacancy is available. On their appointment, they will be accorded seniority according to their rank in the panel. Except the seniority, they will take other service benefits from the date of their appointment. 18. Mr. Clerk has submitted that of the above referred seven writ petitioners only four in the General category fared above the ten persons who have been offered regular appointment. The petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 2691 and 2695 of 2008 are Scheduled Tribe candidates. Both these petitioners fare below the Scheduled Tribe candidates, who have been offered regular appointment. Thus, in the submission of Mr. Clerk, if any relief is required to be granted to the panelists in Vadodara Division, it is the petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos. 2681, 2709, 2710 and 4502 of 2008, who is entitled to such relief. 19. In view of the above direction, Appeal Nos.1076 and 1080 to 1082 of 2008 are dis- missed. The judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in aforesaid four Special Civil Application Nos. 2681, 2709, 2710 and 4502 of 2008 is confirmed. 20. For the reasons stated in this judgment, rest of the Appeals are allowed. 19. In view of the above direction, Appeal Nos.1076 and 1080 to 1082 of 2008 are dis- missed. The judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in aforesaid four Special Civil Application Nos. 2681, 2709, 2710 and 4502 of 2008 is confirmed. 20. For the reasons stated in this judgment, rest of the Appeals are allowed. The judgment and, Order passed by the learned single Judge in corresponding writ petitions is quashed and set aside. The said writ petitions stand dismissed. 21. Civil Applications stand disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost. Order accordingly.